Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the excise authorities could attach the properties of a sick industrial company during the pendency of proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and before sanction of a revival scheme.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 15, 16, 17 and 22 of the Act shows that once a reference is made, inquiry is pending, or a scheme is under preparation, proceedings for execution, distress or similar coercive recovery action against the properties of the sick company cannot continue without the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority. The protection is automatic and is intended to preserve the company's assets until the rehabilitation process is worked out. The authorities' reliance on the nature of excise dues did not alter the statutory bar, particularly when the scheme had not yet been sanctioned.
Conclusion: The attachment proceedings were not permissible and were liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned attachment order was set aside, and the sick company was left to pursue remedies in accordance with law after obtaining the requisite permission from the Board.
Ratio Decidendi: When an inquiry or scheme process under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is pending, coercive recovery measures against the properties of a sick industrial company are barred by section 22 unless consent of the Board or Appellate Authority is obtained.